IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU Dated this the 27th day of July, 2017 PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE MR SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE P S DINESH KUMAR WRIT APPEAL Nos.4224-4225 of 2017 (BDA) BETWEEN:
1. KAILASH BDA APARTMENT OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION (REGD.) VALEGERAHALLI, MYSORE ROAD KENGERI, BENGALURU-560 059 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT Mr.GANAPATHY HEGDE S/O.Mr.THIMMANNA HEGDE AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDING AT No.B7,-503 KAILASH BDA APARTMENTS VALEGERAHALLI, MYSORE ROAD KENGERI, BENGALURU-560 059 2. SRI.K.SIDDAIAH S/O LATE KADAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS B2-501, 3 BHK KAILASH BDA APARTMENTS VALEGERAHALLI, MYSORE ROAD KENGERI, BENGALURU-560 059 ... APPELLANTS (BY SHRI.GANAPATHI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SHRI.GEORGE JOSEPH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU-560 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER HOUSING PROJECT SUB-DIVISION BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BENGALURU-560 020 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BENGALURU-560 020 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI.D.N.NANJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI.K.KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT Nos.1 TO 3) THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION Nos.65343-344/2016 DATED 20/04/2017.
THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
J U D G M E N T The writ petitioners are the appellants before us. They purchased flats from the Bengaluru Development Authority (for short ‘BDA’), pursuant to an advertisement issued on March 14, 2013.
2. BDA constructed certain affordable housing flats and, thereafter, allotted the flats on the basis of the applications received from the allottees. In the advertisement, it was categorically stated that after the allotment, the available parking space will be allotted among the allottees only through auction. The auction notice with regard to the parking space was issued on November 18, 2016. That was challenged by filing the writ petitions.
3. The contention of the writ petitioners was that as the proportionate area of the land was conveyed to the writ petitioners at the time of execution of the sale deeds and as the car parking space has been the common area, such area could not be allotted to anybody.
4. There was a clear understanding between the purchasers and the BDA that the car parking space would be allotted among the allottees only through auction.
5. There are 142 covered car parking spaces in the apartment known as Kailash.
6.Mr.D.N.Nanjunda Reddy, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondents, categorically, submits, on instructions, that there are about 300 apartment owners and covered parking spaces are not available to all of them. The car parking spaces will be allotted to the apartment owners, on the basis of leave and licence, through auction only. He further submitted that the other apartment owners having car can park their vehicles in the open car parking space without any charges.
7. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Hon’ble Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petitions by holding that the schedules of the deed of the apartment owners did not include the car parking area.
8. We do not find any merit in these appeals. The appeals stand dismissed.
9. In view of dismissal of the appeals, the pending interlocutory applications do not survive consideration and are, also, dismissed.
10. We make no order as to costs.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE Yn.